The dilemma of Palestine and the United Nations

Where do Britain, Israel, the United States stand on Palestine's bid for
statehood?

In a televised speech in Ramallah, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas confirms that he will ask the United Nations to formally recognise the state of Palestine when he visits the General Assembly next week. Photo: REUTERS

In the next few days Palestinian leaders are set to apply for full membership of the United Nations. Just two nights ago, Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, used a televised address to supporters to describe full UN statehood as “our right”.

Hillary Clinton and the US diplomatic service have been working overtime to discourage the application. Although America has the power to veto full membership, it doesn’t possess enough allies to stop Palestine achieving observer status.

Why does America object?

Washington fears that granting statehood will endanger the already slim prospects for a resumption of face-to-face talks with Israel.

Israel has a justifiable suspicion of the United Nations. The UN’s human rights body was, until recently, chaired by Gadaffi-run Libya and has repeatedly censured Israel while remaining silent on the crimes of regimes such as Syria.

Hillary Clinton fears that a Palestinian delegation will harness the UN’s anti-Israel sentiment to pursue relentless acts of “lawfare”. Even observer status could give Palestine the right to attempt multiple, vexatious prosecutions of Israel through the International Criminal Court.

What’s Britain’s position?

Although British Conservatives have traditionally been closer to the American world view, there is something of a shift taking place as Anglo-French relations become warmer and deeper.

In Benghazi, Libya, on Thursday this shift was evident as David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy stood before an ecstatic, mainly Muslim crowd, championing the most exciting manifestation of the Arab Spring so far. Foreign Office advisers have warned William Hague that Britain’s improved status in the Middle East could be compromised if Britain takes Israel’s side at the UN. Consequently, the UK has been leaning towards a compromise position drafted by Paris that would give Palestine observer status.

The thinking behind this position was summed up by Alistair Burt, the foreign office minister. “It would be a disaster,” he said, if after the UN process “one side proclaimed triumph and the other reacted to a disaster”.

Will Israel accept a compromise?

No. Israel is feeling even more vulnerable than usual at the moment. Last week’s attacks on its embassy in Cairo were bad enough. Worse was the new Egyptian regime’s failure

to even answer Israel’s increasingly desperate calls when the rioting was at its worst. Relations with Turkey have become very hostile and the international community seems unable to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons – weapons that Tehran has promised to aim at Tel Aviv.

Israel points out that the Palestinian authority has recently brokered a deal with the terrorist-sponsoring Hamas. It notes that Abbas has said that he’ll exclude every Jew from any Palestinian state. Israel believes that it would be wrong for the international community to reward this kind of extremism.

What’s the view of Tory and Liberal Democrat MPs?

At the top of the Government, Iain Duncan Smith, Liam Fox, Michael Gove and George Osborne are steadfast supporters of Israel and they are joined by many Conservative backbenchers.

There are, however, a handful of increasingly vocal Tory critics of Israel. Their hand has been strengthened by the sometimes bellicose rhetoric of Israel’s prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu and also by the yellow half of the Coalition.

Nearly all Liberal Democrat MPs support full statehood for Palestine. Chris Huhne has said he is “entirely sympathetic” with Abbas’s objective, and Ming Campbell has described Alistair Burt’s middle-of-the-road position as profoundly disappointing. Nick Clegg himself is thought to be under pressure from his wife, who

has previously advised the Palestinian Authority.

What does Cameron do?

The Prime Minister probably won’t veto Palestinian statehood for fear of causing a dangerous rift with the Liberal Democrats. He’ll also have noted threats from Saudi Arabia to reduce co-operation with the West if Palestinian hopes are dashed. On the deep blue sea side of his devilish dilemma, he knows he risks his government’s relationship with Israel. Cameron has been skating on thin ice for some time with friends of the region’s pre-eminent democracy. Neither he nor William Hague are seen as reliable allies. The Prime Minister caused upset last year when he likened Gaza to a “prison camp”. More recently he caused offence when he resigned as a patron of the Jewish National Fund.

With all key parties gathering in New York this week, the PM’s hope is that a showdown vote can somehow be avoided. He hopes that the whole drama will force all sides back to the negotiating table. That seems unlikely without some major concession from Israel on, for example, the building of settlements. And without major concessions, Abbas is unlikely to spare Cameron or Barack Obama from having to make some very awkward choices.